I am curious as to whether those who are critical of MBSR actually have any experience of it?

"I tried it, but didn't find it satisfactory because...( insert reasons )" seems like a more credible response than "I just don't like the sound of it".

I can't do it, because I have no idea how to be "nonjudgmentally aware", and nobody wants to/can teach me that.
I listen to JKZ giving instructions on how to be "nonjudgmentally aware" and he might as well be speaking Chinese (of which I don't understand a word).

On the other hand, there is an approach both in psychology as well as in popular Buddhism that has a practice of considering thoughts, feelings, etc. as "just thoughts, just feelings," etc. with the implication that this somehow makes them eminently dismissable. It's this practice that trivializes thoughts, feelings, etc. -- and it is this trivialization that I have been fighting all along (although it seems unsuccessfully).

I would say any phenomena which arises only for an instant , then ceases immediately- as all dhammas do- is insignificant and if seen as such wouldn't even need to be dismissed.

And then what?

In my experience, when I try to let in the seen be only the seen etc., I end up in a kind of anomic, zoned-out state, like a blissed-out zombie. That can't be right!

In my experience, when I try to let in the seen be only the seen etc., I end up in a kind of anomic, zoned-out state, like a blissed-out zombie. That can't be right!

It isn't right, but it's a fairly common 'wrong turning' for people to take. I'm not sure if I can explain the difference in any understandable way, though.

One approach is to liken it to the difference between observing the breath in meditation, and controlling the breath - another common 'wrong turning.' When we are trying to simply observe the breath, we can slip into controlling it instead, without even noticing that's what we're doing, and that can lead to all sorts of unwanted tension and discomfort.
Similarly, when we are trying to simply observe the seen, we can slip into trying to actively shut down our thoughts and judgements, rather than letting them float away.

I'm not sure that will make sense, but it's the best I can do. Maybe someone else can do better?

In my experience, when I try to let in the seen be only the seen etc., I end up in a kind of anomic, zoned-out state, like a blissed-out zombie. That can't be right!

Of course it's not right. You cannot separate the seen from the seer. It is one activity that your mind has divided into two parts. You cannot be 'non judgmentally aware'. All perception is judgemental at this stage. Stop fighting it and trying to lead it somewhere. This is the activity that is disturbing you. The kind of relaxation and withdrawal from focusing on mental and emotional disturbances needs to happen first. This is done with calming/tranquility practice. The attention withdraws from this activity of thoughts and feelings and you might find yourself feeling blissful. Nothing wrong with that. It is just a stage, an effect. Vipassana, insight, can happen then, but only if the other conditions are present.

In my experience, when I try to let in the seen be only the seen etc., I end up in a kind of anomic, zoned-out state, like a blissed-out zombie. That can't be right!

It isn't right, but it's a fairly common 'wrong turning' for people to take. I'm not sure if I can explain the difference in any understandable way, though.

One approach is to liken it to the difference between observing the breath in meditation, and controlling the breath - another common 'wrong turning.' When we are trying to simply observe the breath, we can slip into controlling it instead, without even noticing that's what we're doing, and that can lead to all sorts of unwanted tension and discomfort.
Similarly, when we are trying to simply observe the seen, we can slip into trying to actively shut down our thoughts and judgements, rather than letting them float away.

I'm not sure that will make sense, but it's the best I can do. Maybe someone else can do better?

I've no idea. But I think you may be identifying a problem that some of these secular techniques seem to jump immediately to a rather advanced form of practice.

I suppose this guy, for example, has considerable meditation attainment too ... (Now how's that for provoking prejudices about spiritual attainment?)

Anyway, my point is that the suttas are anything but shy when it comes to straightforwardly talking about morality, while the secular mindfulness folks seem to shun it. Maybe they are deliberately trying to be neutral, or they take it for granted (and see no need to talk about it explicitly), or they are just so advanced that I cannot even begin to comprehend them.

It isn't right, but it's a fairly common 'wrong turning' for people to take. I'm not sure if I can explain the difference in any understandable way, though.

One approach is to liken it to the difference between observing the breath in meditation, and controlling the breath - another common 'wrong turning.' When we are trying to simply observe the breath, we can slip into controlling it instead, without even noticing that's what we're doing, and that can lead to all sorts of unwanted tension and discomfort.
Similarly, when we are trying to simply observe the seen, we can slip into trying to actively shut down our thoughts and judgements, rather than letting them float away.

I'm not sure that will make sense, but it's the best I can do. Maybe someone else can do better?

What you're describing is something awfully advanced, namely, direct perception, ie. a perception that is not conditioned.
I find it hard to believe that all those masses of folks doing mindfulness meditation have attained to direct perception.

I'm not sure that will make sense, but it's the best I can do. Maybe someone else can do better?

Meditation doesn't happen in some kind of metaphysical and moral vacuum. Just because someone doesn't specify their metaphysical and moral convictions, doesn't automatically mean that they don't have them or that they are beyond them.
And I suspect the mindfulness folks have plenty of those convictions, and that they are vital to their practice, and that one must also have those convictions, or their practice won't work for one.

I'm not sure that will make sense, but it's the best I can do. Maybe someone else can do better?

Meditation doesn't happen in some kind of metaphysical and moral vacuum. Just because someone doesn't specify their metaphysical and moral convictions, doesn't automatically mean that they don't have them or that they are beyond them.

and that one must also have those convictions, or their practice won't work for one.

That's not true, however. The heart of the practice is simply accurate observation of what's going on in our own minds, and its success is quite independent of our specific religious or moral framework. That's why Buddhist meditation and Christian meditation can be so similar and produce such similar results.
Mindfulness without any metaphysical framework could be problematic, but I'm not sure that any of us really has no set of beliefs and assumptions underpinning our daily lives. If we think we have none, it's probably because we've never looked for them or at them. And in that case, mindfulness could lead us to look at them and perhaps improve them.

It isn't right, but it's a fairly common 'wrong turning' for people to take. I'm not sure if I can explain the difference in any understandable way, though.

One approach is to liken it to the difference between observing the breath in meditation, and controlling the breath - another common 'wrong turning.' When we are trying to simply observe the breath, we can slip into controlling it instead, without even noticing that's what we're doing, and that can lead to all sorts of unwanted tension and discomfort.
Similarly, when we are trying to simply observe the seen, we can slip into trying to actively shut down our thoughts and judgements, rather than letting them float away.

I'm not sure that will make sense, but it's the best I can do. Maybe someone else can do better?

What you're describing is something awfully advanced, namely, direct perception, ie. a perception that is not conditioned.
I find it hard to believe that all those masses of folks doing mindfulness meditation have attained to direct perception.

I think you're setting up an artificial barrier here, or you may be misinterpreting what I said.
Forget the 'direct perception' label, and then forget 'all those masses'.
What I'm talking about is always (I think) momentary in its early stages and often lost quickly, but it's still useful. With practice, it comes more easily and is maintained for longer, but it's still lost easily - and still useful. With more practice ... I guess we're talking 'awfully advanced' at last.
Like any skill (learning a musical instrument, for instance), it's something that develops with practice and persistence - and it's something that many people give up working on before they get to be really really good at it. That's okay. If they only ever wanted to play "Jingle Bells" and they can, fine.

Meditation doesn't happen in some kind of metaphysical and moral vacuum.

Are you sure of this?....how would you know?

Granted, some people are very capable of psychological compartmentalization.
For example, I once heard a Catholic say that he wants his future wife to take the pill when they "make the art of love" and that he doesn't let his religious beliefs interfere with his sex life.

Some people are like that. I can't compartmentalize like that, though, and I tend to have a "one thing all the time" mentality, a tendency to be aware of the "bigger picture" much of my waking hours (for better or worse). My metaphysical concerns (that "big picture") are very close to me, and if I don't think about them directly, I know they are right under the surface. I don't know what it's like to be otherwise.

Also to any sutta that reports the Buddha giving a "graduated talk on Dhamma", i.e., one on dāna, sīla, heavenly rebirth, the peril of sense-desires and advantage of renunciation, culminating in an exposition of the four noble truths.

And then there are the two Cetanākaraṇīyasuttas, in both of which the line of reasoning is predicated upon the anattā-ness of things:

“Bhikkhus, for a virtuous person, one whose behavior is virtuous, no volition need be exerted: ‘Let non-regret arise in me.’ It is natural that non-regret arises in a virtuous person, one whose behavior is virtuous.

When the Buddha advised the Kalamas, why didn't he tell them to view their doubts and questions about right and wrong, true and false as stressful, impermanent, and notself?

The Buddha’s policy seems to have been to give whatever kind of teaching would conduce to the highest good that his listeners were capable of. In this case, apparently, it was conversion to the Dhamma, not penetration of the Dhamma.